Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Replies: 43   Last Post: Feb 22, 2013 10:04 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
J. Antonio Perez M.

Posts: 2,736
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Posted: Feb 10, 2013 5:29 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:54:26 AM UTC+2, fom wrote:
> This post is motivated by recent discussions
>
> involving a term with which I had been
>
> personally unfamiliar. It is an exercise
>
> in "basic" logic.
>
>
>
>
>
> Consider the "math trick,"
>
>
>
>
>
> 9.999...
>
> -0.999...
>
> ---------
>
> 9.000...
>
>
>
> in relation to
>
>
>
> 10x
>
> -x
>
> ----
>
> 9x
>
>
>
> By pattern matching, one infers
>
>
>
> 0.999...=1
>
>
>
> x=1
>
>
>
> Since x=1 is surmised from the algebraic
>
> syntax.
>
>
>
> Now, in what follows, the particular
>
> problem will be considering the nature
>
> of eventually constant sequences taken
>
> to be ontologically "the same." So, in
>
> addition to the above, the identity,
>
>
>
> 1=1.000...
>
>
>
> is considered to be a presupposition
>
> available to the analysis. So, what
>
> is actually being considered is the
>
> syntax,
>
>
>
> 0.999...=1.000...
>
>
>
> and, at the appropriate time, the
>
> analysis will turn to binary sequences
>
> for ease of presentation. Thus, this analysis
>
> is not necessarily applicable to the
>
> example with which it has been introduced.
>
>
>
> It will be, however, applicable to the
>
> context from which the term "distinguishability"
>
> has been found to have a sourced definition.
>
>
>
> In the tradition of logic that has become
>
> popular, the logical problem being investigated
>
> may be stated as being an assertion of ontological
>
> identity using an informative identity statement. That
>
> problem is particularly difficult, in general, as
>
> the classic Fregean identity puzzle
>
>
>
> "Hesperus is Phosphorus"
>
>
>
> has shown. But, by analogy with polynomials
>
> of degree greater than 4, there is no reason
>
> to think that some classes of problems of
>
> this nature are not amenable to analysis.
>
>
>
> To be formally explicit, the analysis presented
>
> here is based on Sausserian semiotics wherein a
>
> syntactic signal antecedent to its consequent
>
> use as a sign never regresses beyond an
>
> observable sign-vehicle (i.e., an inscription).
>
> In contrast, Piercean semiotics is subject
>
> to infinitary regress into non-grammatical
>
> sign-functionality.
>
>
>
> So, that we clarify the nature of the received
>
> paradigm in this matter, we address the issue
>
> of uniform semantic interpretation of inscriptions
>
> by invoking Carnap's notion of syntactic equality.
>
> Hence, what is expressed by
>
>
>
> 0.999...=1.000...
>
>
>
> is the identity of two equivalence classes
>
>
>
> [0.999...]=[1.000...]
>
>
>
> relative to which some quotient model must
>
> be formed to accommodate the fact that an
>
> ontological assertion is being made using
>
> an informative identity.
>
>
>
> Because the received paradigm does not
>
> address informative identity directly, it
>
> is possible that there are interpretations
>
> in which
>
>
>
> [0.999...]=[1.000...]
>
>
>
> is false.
>
>
>
> With these preliminaries out of the way,
>
> it is time to consider how the presupposition
>
>
>
> 1=1.000...
>
>
>
> is indicated as the canonical representation
>
> given that, alternatively,
>
>
>
> 1=0.999...
>
>
>
> is also a candidate for the canonical
>
> representation.
>
>
>
> Consider the construction of the real
>
> numbers in relation to Dedekind cuts. To
>
> accept this construction is to accept the
>
> fact that in a hierarchy of definition, there
>
> is information about the defined system that
>
> is epistemically prior by virtue of the
>
> construction.
>
>
>
> What is taken to be known essentially is that
>
> for any given Dedekind cut, it is in the class
>
> of rational cuts or it is in the class of irrational
>
> cuts.
>
>
>
> However, there is still more information associated
>
> with the construction that informs with respect to
>
> the analysis at hand. Because one has a choice as
>
> to which direction of the linear order in the underlying
>
> rationals will be used for the cuts, there is a
>
> decision that may be applied to the representations
>
> of rationals in relation to decimal expansions.
>
>
>
> Since, for any finite initial segement of the
>
> expression 0.999... it is held that
>
>
>
>
>
> 0.999 < 1.000...
>
>
>
>
>
> the system of Dedekind cuts will be given its
>
> fundamental partition according to whether or
>
> not its greatest lower bound is an element. This
>
> choice is compatible with the usual notion that
>
> an eventually constant sequence of trailing zeros
>
> is the same as a long division that terminates.
>
>
>
> It is at this point that the context of the
>
> analysis will be changed to binary strings. The
>
> principal concern will be the relationship of
>
> eventually constant strings to one another in
>
> constrast to strings that never become eventually
>
> constant.
>
>
>
> The next step is to represent the orientation of
>
> cuts with respect to a preferred canonical
>
> representation.
>
>
>
> Now, what motivates the choice of theoretical
>
> context for this analysis is the information
>
> content in the assertion,
>
>
>
> 0.999...=1.000...
>
>
>
> The model that best seems to reflect a selection
>
> of preference here is that of automata -- in
>
> particular, the selection of preference is
>
> characterized in terms of lossless and lossy
>
> machines.
>
>
>
> Since it is almost trivial, we begin by recalling
>
> that there is prior knowledge that distinguishes
>
> the cuts into two classes and look to those cuts
>
> that are defined as irrational real numbers. Let
>
> the automaton that is applied to identifying
>
> concatenations of alphabet letters for the irrational
>
> cuts simply copy its input to its output,
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | B0 | B1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> B | C0 | C1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> C | D0 | D1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> D | E0 | E1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
>
>
> and so on
>
>
>
> Thus, each state S_k copies its input symbol to
>
> its output symbol and transitions to its grammatical
>
> successor S_(k+1)
>
>
>
> The simplicity of the irrational automaton arises
>
> from the fact that it is applied to the identifying
>
> sequence for a given Dedekind cut when that cut is
>
> not a rational cut. It is defined negatively, and,
>
> the simplicity of its content reflects that fact.
>
>
>
> For the rational numbers, the situation is different
>
> because the hierarchy of logical definition affords
>
> prior knowledge. The automaton for each rational
>
> cut simply outputs the identifying concatenation of
>
> alphabet letters as a known sequence, regardless
>
> of input symbols. Those rational numbers that do not enjoy
>
> two distinct representations by virtue of eventually
>
> constant sequences are lossless. That is,
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|-------|-------|
>
> A | B a_1 | B a_1 |
>
> --|-------|-------|
>
> B | C a_2 | C a_2 |
>
> --|-------|-------|
>
> C | D a_3 | D a_3 |
>
> --|-------|-------|
>
> D | E a_4 | E a_4 |
>
> --|-------|-------|
>
>
>
> and so on
>
>
>
> They do repeat, however. Take for example,
>
> the string obtained for the fraction 1/5,
>
>
>
>
>
> 00110011...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | B0 | B0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> B | C0 | C0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> C | D1 | D1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> D | E1 | E1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> E | F0 | F0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> F | G0 | G0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> G | H1 | H1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> H | I1 | I1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
>
>
> and so on.
>
>
>
> The states may be seen to correspond
>
> with the labelling,
>
>
>
> ABCDEFGH
>
> 00110011...
>
>
>
> Although each state transitions to its
>
> grammatical successor as with the machine
>
> applied to irrational numbers, the output
>
> symbols reflect the state of prior knowledge
>
> and are not simply copies of the input
>
> symbols.
>
>
>
> In constrast, those rational cuts with a
>
> plural multiplicity of identifying concatenations
>
> of alphabet letters have a different pattern
>
> of state transitions from the prior cases.
>
>
>
> Consider,
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> A | B ab_1 | B ab_1 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> B | C ab_2 | C ab_2 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> C | D ab_3 | D ab_3 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> D | E ab_4 | E ab_4 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> E | F a_5 | G b_5 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> F | H a_6 | H a_6 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> G | I b_6 | I b_6 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> H | J a_7 | J a_7 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> I | K b_7 | K b_7 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> J | L a_8 | L a_8 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> K | M b_8 | M b_8 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> L | N a_9 | N a_9 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
> M | O b_9 | O b_9 |
>
> --|--------|--------|
>
>
>
> and so on
>
>
>
> As the state table makes clear, it can
>
> no longer be said that states transition
>
> to their grammatical successor as a general
>
> rule.
>
>
>
> Consider a particular example. Suppose one
>
> has the sequences,
>
>
>
> 11010000...
>
>
>
> 11001111...
>
>
>
> Prior to any preference, the state table for
>
> the automaton is given as
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | B1 | B1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> B | C1 | C1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> C | D0 | E0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> D | F1 | F1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> E | G0 | G0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> F | H0 | H0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> G | I1 | I1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> H | J0 | J0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> I | K1 | K1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> J | L0 | L0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> K | M1 | M1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> L | N0 | N0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
>
>
> and so on
>
>
>
> The states may be seen to correspond
>
> with the labelling,
>
>
>
> ABCDFHJL
>
> 11010000...
>
>
>
> ABCEGIKM
>
> 11001111...
>
>
>
> But, the choice to establish a canonical
>
> representation -- the choice which informed
>
> the directionality to be used for the
>
> cuts -- has a different automaton,
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | B1 | B1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> B | C1 | C1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> C | D0 | E0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> D | F1 | F1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> E | G1 | G1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> F | H0 | H0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> G | I0 | I0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> H | J0 | J0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> I | K0 | K0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> J | L0 | L0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> K | M0 | M0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> L | N0 | N0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
>
>
> and so on
>
>
>
>
>
> It is this representation that is lossy.
>
>
>
> Now, the following quoted material is the
>
> definition for distinguishability that shall
>
> be considered here. It is taken from "Finite-State
>
> Models for Logical Machines" by Frederick C. Hennie.
>
> Although it is not the best, it is all that is on
>
> my bookshelves. To see what I mean in this regard,
>
> consider the subsequent description for the associated
>
> partitions carefully. By my reading, the uqualified
>
> description for the construction of partitions would
>
> not partition the states in the manner suggested by
>
> the subsequent qualifying remarks describing a
>
> sequence of refinements. Perhaps I am wrong.
>
> Sometimes mathematics is so easy that it is hard.
>
> I included the qualifying remarks concerning the
>
> description of partitions specifically because I
>
> am having a hard time seeing the claim directly
>
> from the unqualified statement.
>
>
>
> With the qualifying remarks, the description of
>
> the partitions appears to correspond with the
>
> definition.
>
>
>
> Distinguishability is defined as follows
>
>
>
> "The most convenient way of finding equivalences
>
> that exist among the states of a machine is to
>
> concentrate on the states that are not equivalent.
>
> Thus, we say that two states are *distinguishable*
>
> iff there exists a finite input sequence that
>
> yields one output sequence when the machine is
>
> started in one state and a different output sequence
>
> when the machine is started in the other state.
>
> If this input sequence contains k symbols, the
>
> states are said to be distinguishable by an experiment
>
> of length k, or simply k-distinguishable. States
>
> that are not distinguishable by any experiment of
>
> length k or less are called k-equivalent. It
>
> follows that two states are equivalent iff they
>
> are k-equivalent for every finite value of k.
>
>
>
> "The definition of k-distinguishability becomes
>
> more useful when recast in the form of two
>
> rules:
>
>
>
> (1) Two states are distinguishable by an experiment
>
> of length one iff there is some input symbol that
>
> produces different output symbols according to
>
> which of the two states the machine is in.
>
>
>
> (2) Two states are distinguishable by an experiment
>
> of length k (with k>1) iff there is some input symbol,
>
> say z, such that the z-successors of the two states
>
> are distinguishable by an experiment of length (k-1).
>
>
>
> These rules provide the basis for a step-by-step
>
> procedure for determining which states of a machine
>
> are one-equivalent, which are two-equivalent, and
>
> so on.
>
>
>
> "The first step is the formation of a partition P_1
>
> in which two states are placed in the same block iff
>
> they produce identical output symbols for each possible
>
> input symbol. This clearly puts two states in the
>
> same block of P_1 if they are one-equivalent and in
>
> different blocks if they are one-distinguishable."
>
>
>
>
>
> For the automaton applied when the cut corresponds
>
> to an irrational,
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,C,D,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> For that applied to the singly-represented rational
>
> the example state table yields,
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,E,F,...)(C,D,G,H,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> For the doubly-represented rational example, this
>
> is the partition before a canonical representative
>
> is indicated through the Dedekind cut,
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,D,G,I,K,...)(C,E,F,H,J,L,...)
>
>
>
> and this is the partition after,
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,D,E)(C,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> Continuing the quoted exposition concerning the
>
> definition of distinguishability,
>
>
>
> "The next step is the formation of a partition
>
> P_2 in which two states are placed in the same
>
> block iff, for each input symbol z, their z-successors
>
> lie in a common block of P_1. Note that P_2
>
> must be a refinement of P_1, for if two states
>
> are two-equivalent, they must certainly be
>
> one-equivalent. Partition P_2 is most
>
> easily formed by splitting the various blocks
>
> of P_1 in such a way that the defining
>
> conditions for P_2 are met."
>
>
>
>
>
> For the automaton applied when the cut corresponds
>
> to an irrational, the second partition is given as
>
>
>
> P_2=(A,B,C,D,...)
>
>
>
> Observe that there has been no change.
>
>
>
>
>
> For that applied for the singly-represented rational
>
> the second partition for the example state table
>
> yields,
>
>
>
> P_2=(A,E,...)(B,F,...)(C,G,...)(D,H,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> For the doubly-represented rational example, this
>
> is the second partition before a canonical representative
>
> is indicated through the Dedekind cut,
>
>
>
> P_2=(A,G,I,K,...)(B,D)(C)(E)(F,H,J,L,...)
>
>
>
> and this is the second partition after,
>
>
>
> P_2=(A)(B,D,E)(C)(F,G,H,I,J,K,L,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> Continuing the quoted exposition concerning the
>
> definition of distinguishability,
>
>
>
> "Partitions P_3, P_4, ..., P_k,... can be formed
>
> in a similar manner.[...]
>
>
>
> "[...], we see that the partitioning process
>
> may be terminated as soon as some partition
>
> P_(m+1) is found to be identical to its
>
> predecessor P_m."
>
>
>
>
>
> Thus, the automaton applied when the cut corresponds
>
> to an irrational has already terminated its
>
> sequence of partitions given
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,C,D,...)
>
>
>
> P_2=(A,B,C,D,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> For that applied for the singly-represented rational
>
> the partition sequence for the example state table
>
> yields,
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,E,F,...)(C,D,G,H,...)
>
>
>
> P_2=(A,E,...)(B,F,...)(C,G,...)(D,H,...)
>
>
>
> P_3=(A,E,...)(B,F,...)(C,G,...)(D,H,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> For the doubly-represented rational example before
>
> orientation by the Dedekind cut,
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,D,G,I,K,...)(C,E,F,H,J,L,...)
>
>
>
> P_2=(A,G,I,K,...)(B,D)(C)(E)(F,H,J,L,...)
>
>
>
> P_3=(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F,H,J,L,...)(G,I,K,...)
>
>
>
> P_4=(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F,H,J,L,...)(G,I,K,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> and after,
>
>
>
> P_1=(A,B,D,E)(C,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,...)
>
>
>
> P_2=(A)(B,D,E)(C)(F,G,H,I,J,K,L,...)
>
>
>
> P_3=(A)(B)(C)(D,E)(F,G,H,I,J,K,L,...)
>
>
>
> P_4=(A)(B)(C)(D,E)(F,G,H,I,J,K,L,...)
>
>
>
>
>
> So, up to this point, it is clear that the various
>
> relationships in the definition of real numbers
>
> via Dedekind cuts and the presuppositions of
>
> a trivial algebraic substitution do have discernible
>
> representation relative to modeling with automatons.
>
>
>
>
>
> With regard to the relationship of finitism and
>
> the apparent simplicity of a symbol such as
>
>
>
> 1.000...
>
>
>
> it is instructive to look at the reduced machines for
>
> these examples. For the automaton applied when the
>
> cut is an irrational, one has
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | A0 | A1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For that applied when the cut corresponds with a
>
> singly-represented rational, one has
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | B0 | B0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> B | C0 | C0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> C | D1 | D1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> D | A1 | A1 |
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For the doubly-represented rational example before
>
> orientation by the Dedekind cut,
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | B1 | B1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> B | C1 | C1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> C | D0 | E0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> D | F1 | F1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> E | G0 | G0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> F | F0 | F0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> G | G1 | G1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
>
>
>
>
> and after,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | 0 | 1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> A | B1 | B1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> B | C1 | C1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> C | D0 | E0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> D | F1 | F1 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
> F | F0 | F0 |
>
> --|----|----|
>
>
>
>
>
> In all cases, the finiteness of the reduced representation
>
> relies on circularity. In the cases where the cuts are
>
> either irrational or doubly-represented, one or more states
>
> are found to be transitioning into themselves.
>
>
>
> Relative to the model investigated here, the notion
>
> of reduced machine relative to k-equivalent states
>
> permits all of the possible machine configurations
>
> derived from consideration of Dedekind cuts to have
>
> finite representation -- provided one does not object
>
> to the use of circularity in the state tables.
>
>
>
> The problem with simply writing out sequences
>
> and naively "knowing" the intended meaning of
>
> "distinguishability" is that the automaton for
>
> the irrational cuts is applied to the identifying
>
> concatenation of alphabet for all sequences
>
> without regard for the hierarchy of logical
>
> definition.
>
>
>
> This analysis, as far as it goes, is not yet
>
> adequate.
>
>
>
> The definition of distinguishability is characterized
>
> in terms of "experiments." It seems prudent to
>
> consider this aspect of the definition further and
>
> with respect to the infinitary nature of the original
>
> problem.
>
>
>
> For each state, there are two possible outcomes in
>
> the sense of traversing a decision tree. Suppose
>
> states are redefined as choices and the components
>
> of each state are taken to be selections. Then
>
> an experiment is a sequence of selections taken
>
> the purpose of destroying an assertion of equivalence.
>
>
>
> In other words, just a subtle change of language
>
> characterizes this model in relation to the historical
>
> epistemic condition associated with the assertion
>
> of "sameness" in relation to definitions.
>
>
>
> However, the primary purpose for this further analysis
>
> is to construct a topology.
>
>
>
> One thing that will be required for this construction
>
> is an enumeration of fractions which is the familiar
>
> diagonalized listing on Z^+xZ^+.
>
>
>
> Each fraction, representing a rational number,
>
> corresponds to one of the automata discussed in
>
> the preceding remarks. As before, there is no
>
> immediate concern for uniqueness constraints since
>
> that destroys information.
>
>
>
> Given any fraction, take the reduced state table, say M,
>
> for the lossless representation and organize the selections
>
> for the unreduced state table relative to their grammatical
>
> order according to
>
>
>
>
>
> A_0---B_0---C_0---...M...---C_1---B_1---A_1
>
>
>
>
>
> Let this ordering be given the interval topology.
>
> Observe that M is the endpoint of no interval.
>
>
>
> Now, let the enumeration of fractions be given the
>
> discrete topology, and, as a first specification
>
> for the topology being constructed, let an enumeration
>
> of sequences like that above be given the product
>
> topology.
>
>
>
> For the next step, it is easiest to use numerical
>
> coordinates. So, let the machine symbol M be
>
> taken as set-theoretic omega and let the selections
>
> be indexed by the non-zero integers according to
>
>
>
>
>
> (1)---(2)---(3)---...omega...---(-3)---(-2)---(-1)
>
>
>
>
>
> Extend the construction with the letters of the
>
> input alphabet, namely '0' and '1'. Remembering
>
> that the interval topology on the representation
>
> above has, for example, (2)<omega and omega<(-2),
>
> and, remembering that the omega in the representation
>
> above has an natural number index according to the
>
> enumeration of fractions, augment the topology
>
> described so far with basis elements,
>
>
>
> B_n_0={0}u{(i,j)|i<omega /\ j>=n}
>
>
>
> B_n_1={1}u{(i,j)|i>omega /\ j>=n}
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is the minimal Hausdorff topology.
>
>
>
> Before continuing with the present example, take a moment
>
> to consider a countable language with a unary negation
>
> symbol.The well-formed formulae may be partitioned
>
> according to whether or not the first symbol from
>
> among the logical constants is the symbol for negation.
>
> They can be partitioned into an enumerable sequence
>
> of lines according to the formulae that can be formed
>
> relative to each step of a stepwise introduction of variable
>
> terms. The negation symbol, itself can be taken as
>
> "omega." Then, the formulae can be arranged in this manner
>
> relative to extension with the Fregean constants,
>
> "the True" and "the False." Language, at least that
>
> fragment that can be formalized, is topological.
>
>
>
> Returning to the present analysis, consider the
>
> quotient topology induced by a map of this minimal
>
> Hausdorff topology into the set of reduced lossless
>
> machines applied to the identifying sequences of
>
> alphabet letters for rational Dedekind cuts. Such
>
> a topology exists because the map from the minimal
>
> Hausdorff topology is surjective onto the set of
>
> lossless machines provided that the map takes each
>
> "line" of selections to the reduced machine for which
>
> its choices form the states of the unreduced machine.
>
>
>
> Because the topology on the enumeration of fractions
>
> is discrete, the inverse image of each machine
>
> corresponds to a representation of the equivalence
>
> class of fractions for some particular rational
>
> Dedekind cut.
>
>
>
> Based on the inverse images, there is a partition
>
> of the minimal Hausdorff topology by which a quotient
>
> space on the topology may be formed.
>
>
>
> Something for another time.
>
>
>
> In any case, the definition of "distinguishability" is
>
> obtained by a stepwise condition involving "experiments
>
> of length K". But -- and here is the important aspect
>
> of this analysis -- equivalence is an infinitary concept.
>
> You do not get to write
>
>
>
> 0.999...=1.000...
>
>
>
> with neither circularity nor a completed infinity.
>
> It is one or the other.



Too looooong a post to be read without proper characters. You'd better write the above with LaTeX in some PDF file and then link us to it, otherwise I'm afraid not many will have the required stamina or masoquist drive to read all that in ASCII.


Date Subject Author
2/10/13
Read distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/10/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
J. Antonio Perez M.
2/10/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/11/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/11/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/14/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/14/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/14/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/15/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/15/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/16/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/21/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/15/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/15/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/14/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Barb Knox
2/18/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/21/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/21/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/21/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/22/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/15/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/16/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
2/16/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/17/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
2/18/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/20/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/21/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/16/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13
Read Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
fom

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.